How do we think?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:23 am WHAT 'circumstances' could affect the FACT that a tree was NECESSARY FIRST, to CAUSE the fruit on that tree?
Depends on where and when you are. Depends on what is available. Etc.
Without examples, then you just sound like you are 'trying to' DEFLECT.

Are you at all ABLE TO provide an example of where a tree is NOT necessary FIRST for fruit to be bared, depending on WHERE and WHEN 'you' are or 'i' am?

Are you at all ABLE TO explain WHY 'what is available' would depend on the FACT that a tree is NEEDED FIRST BEFORE fruit could come into existence?
It depends if you are on earth on the right time and place for example.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:23 am Well this is A HUGE CLAIM.

Are you able to back up and support this CLAIM?

If yes, then will you?

HOW did 'Existence' come into being if there was NO 'cause'? In fact, HOW could ANY 'thing' come into existence if there was NO cause?
This is a long debate.
Well I can FINISH 'that debate' ONCE and for ALL.
Cool.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am I have to prove two things:
I do NOT care how many 'things' you BELIEVE that you HAVE TO PROVE. I suggest just 'doing it'. I will AGAIN suggest to you that if you want to make a CLAIM, then it is BEST that you are able to back up and support that CLAIM with ACTUAL PROOF FIRST.
Ok.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am 1) There is no God and 2) There was a beginning. Which one do you like to start with?
When you say, "God", what do you mean, what are you referring to, how do you define that word, and what do you identify that word with, EXACTLY?
By God I mean the creator of everything from nothing at the beginning.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am When you say, "There was a beginning", what are you referring to, what was there 'a beginning' of, EXACTLY?
The point that there was nothing before.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am Also, I have PROVED what thee ACTUAL Truth IS ALREADY. This is done by YOUR INABILITY to answer MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you above here.
I cleared those definition up. Now the proofs:

1) There is no God: There are two states of affair in act of the creation, nothing then something respectively. One state of affair follows another one. This act requires time. Time is a part of the creation itself. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible since this (the act requires time and time is a part of creation) leads to regress.

2) There was a begining. There are two proofs in here:

A) Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

B) There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am Great.

This, in and of itself, MEANS that 'causality' HAS TO HAVE ALWAYS been in Existence.
That is not correct. Regress is not possible.
This is ANOTHER CLAIM you like to make. YET you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM.

Are you even YET AWARE that I NEED to SEE PROOF FIRST, BEFORE I agree with and accept the CLAIMS made by 'you', human beings.

'you', "bahman", have YET to SHOW ANY PROOF for ANY of YOUR CLAIMS here.
I don't need to prove anything in here. Regress is related to infinity. Infinity cannot be reached by definition. Therefore, the regress is not acceptable.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am UNLESS, OF COURSE, 'you', "bahman", can PROVE otherwise.

Can you PROVE otherwise "bahman"?
That is the subject of the previous comment.
If you can PROVE otherwise, then just say YES.

WHY are you making this SO UNNECESSARY HARD and COMPLEX?
Oh, come on. That is not complex. Why don't you think and read my whole post before you start writing something and complain.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Okay great.

So, will you NOT use that unnecessary and diversionary remark "It depends" anymore in relation to 'causality' and 'existence'?
Of course. There are lots of detail are missing here. For example beginning, decision and experience.
Well WHY are YOU LEAVING these details out for?
I am not leaving any detail aside.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am
Did you forget that it was 'you', "bahman", who STARTED talking about 'making a change' through and from 'a decision' here?
I thought that you missed that part. Everything is alright if you agree that a decision is needed for any causation.
BUT OBVIOUSLY ONLY 'you', human beings, make decisions. AND, just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that causation was happening and occurring BEFORE you human beings evolved and came into existence. SO, this makes YOUR CLAIM here beyond RIDICULOUS.
Minds have existed since the beginning. So there was always a decision before causation.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Did we, or did we NOT, just get through AGREEING that trees were NEEDED FIRST to 'cause' fruit?

If we did AGREE that this is true, then do you also agree that trees and fruit were around BEFORE human beings and decisions EVERY came into Existence?

Your CLAIM that 'a decision' is NEEDED for EACH causation implies that human beings have been in Existence, FOR EVER. Or, are you 'trying to' suggest that there is some 'thing' else that has been making 'decisions' FOR EVER?
I am not talking about humans but minds in here to be clear. Minds have existed since the beginning.
Okay, now we are STARTING to get SOMEWHERE, although it is BACK to WHERE we first began.

So, to 'you', which is sometimes A 'mind' and sometimes A human being WITH a 'mind', there has been these 'mind' thingies, which have, sometimes, been around FOREVER, and, sometimes, been around SINCE THE BEGINNING, correct?
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am When our discussions are LOOKED BACK OVER, the amount of times 'you', "bahman", CONTRADICT "yourself" is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS to LOOK AT, NOTICE, and OBSERVE.
What contradiction you are talking about.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Now, what sort of 'decisions' have these 'mind' thingies been making which MUST OF been BEFORE trees and fruit evolved and came into existence?
Anything depending on what they experienced.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am I did my best.
You OBVIOUSLY have NOT.

Your LIES and DECEIT are CRYSTAL CLEAR, well to 'me' anyway.
Off-topic again.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Depends on where and when you are. Depends on what is available. Etc.
Without examples, then you just sound like you are 'trying to' DEFLECT.

Are you at all ABLE TO provide an example of where a tree is NOT necessary FIRST for fruit to be bared, depending on WHERE and WHEN 'you' are or 'i' am?

Are you at all ABLE TO explain WHY 'what is available' would depend on the FACT that a tree is NEEDED FIRST BEFORE fruit could come into existence?
It depends if you are on earth on the right time and place for example.
But what has causation got to do with 'me', personally?

Are you now 'trying to' suggest that causation is NOT possible without little old 'me'?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
This is a long debate.
Well I can FINISH 'that debate' ONCE and for ALL.
Cool.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am I have to prove two things:
I do NOT care how many 'things' you BELIEVE that you HAVE TO PROVE. I suggest just 'doing it'. I will AGAIN suggest to you that if you want to make a CLAIM, then it is BEST that you are able to back up and support that CLAIM with ACTUAL PROOF FIRST.
Ok.

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
When you say, "God", what do you mean, what are you referring to, how do you define that word, and what do you identify that word with, EXACTLY?
By God I mean the creator of everything from nothing at the beginning.
Here is ANOTHER ABSURD CONTRADICTION of YOURS, "bahman". You are SO BLIND that saying "God created everything from nothing" is in itself a 'self-contradiction'.

To you, there is, supposedly, some 'thing', which you call/label 'God', which would OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BE 'here/there' BEFORE everything else, but which you also CLAIM created everything from nothing. OBVIOUSLY there could NOT be 'nothing' if there is ALREADY this 'God' thingy, existing.

Also, adding the words, "in the beginning", is what ACTUALLY leads human beings like 'you' and the ones who are labeled/called 'religious' and 'scientific' to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there was EVEN 'a beginning' (to begin with).

The words, "in the beginning", have been MISINTERPRETED for so long now that some of 'you', human beings, in the days of when this was written, STILL ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there was EVEN 'a beginning' to Everything.

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am When you say, "There was a beginning", what are you referring to, what was there 'a beginning' of, EXACTLY?
The point that there was nothing before.[/quote]

And, 'what', PRECISELY, are you basing this CLAIM, ASSUMPTION, and BELIEF on, EXACTLY?

Saying, "there was a point where there was nothing before", is as ILLOGICAL, UNSOUND, and as INVALID a statement as there could be.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that even suggests that this could even be A POSSIBILITY, let alone AN ACTUALITY. Whereas, EVERY 'thing' else points to the FACT that the ACTUAL OPPOSITE is thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am Also, I have PROVED what thee ACTUAL Truth IS ALREADY. This is done by YOUR INABILITY to answer MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you above here.
I cleared those definition up.
NO YOU HAVE NOT. What you are ASSUMING I was talking about here is WRONG and INCORRECT.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am Now the proofs:

1) There is no God: There are two states of affair in act of the creation, nothing then something respectively.
This is False, Wrong, Incorrect, and NOT YET PROVEN AT ALL.

But as can be ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED, and ALREADY PROVEN True, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing that is/was created came from at least two things prior. So, in the act of creation, there was, and IS, at least two things, then something 'new', respectively.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am One state of affair follows another one.
OBVIOUSLY one state of affair follows another one. This goes WITHOUT SAYING. But, saying that 'nothing' is one state and so that means that another state of "something" follows is NOTHING MORE than just YOUR BELIEF ALONE, which is based on absolutely NOTHING of ANY substance AT ALL.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am This act requires time.
If by 'time' here you just mean and are referring to 'duration', itself, then OBVIOUSLY one state following another state requires duration. This goes WITHOUT SAYING ALSO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am Time is a part of the creation itself.
If, and when, 'you' 'try to' define 'time' here, then what WILL BE SEEN is you just falling into your downward spiral and trap of CONTRADICTION again. Anyway, a part of 'Creation', Itself, OBVIOUSLY includes 'change', which necessarily involves duration. But, this ALSO just goes WITHOUT 'needing' to be SAID.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am Therefore, the act of creation is impossible since this (the act requires time and time is a part of creation) leads to regress.
Your ATTEMPTS at just adding the word 'regress' and using it as though that PROVES what you are saying is correct, is just MORE DISTORTED and DELUSIONAL THINKING.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am 2) There was a begining. There are two proofs in here:

A) Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually.
And you are BASING this IRREFUTABLE and ABSOLUTE Truth on 'what', EXACTLY?

What you have previously experienced, or, on what you have read in a book?

Have you FORGOTTEN that we are talking about thee Universe, Itself?

Also, you are just RE-REPEATING the SAME THINGS here WITHOUT EVER considering what I have been SAYING and WRITING here.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.
The absurdness and ridiculousness of this, so called, "logic" speaks for itself.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am B) There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.
The ILLOGICAL absurdness and ridiculousness CONTINUES.

I have ALSO ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY these two VIEWS are just PLAIN WRONG.

You did NOT respond to what I wrote and EXPLAINED last time.

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
That is not correct. Regress is not possible.
This is ANOTHER CLAIM you like to make. YET you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM.

Are you even YET AWARE that I NEED to SEE PROOF FIRST, BEFORE I agree with and accept the CLAIMS made by 'you', human beings.

'you', "bahman", have YET to SHOW ANY PROOF for ANY of YOUR CLAIMS here.
I don't need to prove anything in here. Regress is related to infinity. Infinity cannot be reached by definition. Therefore, the regress is not acceptable.
you are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE. AND, I certainly have NO intention of wanting you to NOT believe what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, here.

You are ABSOLUTELY FREE to do and think ABSOLUTELY ANY way that you WANT TO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
That is the subject of the previous comment.
If you can PROVE otherwise, then just say YES.

WHY are you making this SO UNNECESSARY HARD and COMPLEX?
Oh, come on. That is not complex.
SO, WHY is it YOU who just does NOT answer my clarifying question Honestly?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am Why don't you think and read my whole post before you start writing something and complain.
WHERE did you GET this ASSUMPTION from, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Of course. There are lots of detail are missing here. For example beginning, decision and experience.
Well WHY are YOU LEAVING these details out for?
I am not leaving any detail aside.
BUT YOU just said, "There are LOTS of DETAILS MISSING here".

If you KNOW this, then it MUST BE 'YOU' who is LEAVING those DETAILS ASIDE, obviously.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
I thought that you missed that part. Everything is alright if you agree that a decision is needed for any causation.
BUT OBVIOUSLY ONLY 'you', human beings, make decisions. AND, just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that causation was happening and occurring BEFORE you human beings evolved and came into existence. SO, this makes YOUR CLAIM here beyond RIDICULOUS.
Minds have existed since the beginning. So there was always a decision before causation.
What were these "mind" thingies existing in and what were they making decisions through and from, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
I am not talking about humans but minds in here to be clear. Minds have existed since the beginning.
Okay, now we are STARTING to get SOMEWHERE, although it is BACK to WHERE we first began.

So, to 'you', which is sometimes A 'mind' and sometimes A human being WITH a 'mind', there has been these 'mind' thingies, which have, sometimes, been around FOREVER, and, sometimes, been around SINCE THE BEGINNING, correct?
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am When our discussions are LOOKED BACK OVER, the amount of times 'you', "bahman", CONTRADICT "yourself" is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS to LOOK AT, NOTICE, and OBSERVE.
What contradiction you are talking about.
LOL
LOL
LOL

The ones where YOU state; "you ARE a mind" YET "you HAVE a mind"
The ones where YOU state; "minds have been around FOREVER" YET "minds have only existed SINCE THE BEGINNING".
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Now, what sort of 'decisions' have these 'mind' thingies been making which MUST OF been BEFORE trees and fruit evolved and came into existence?
Anything depending on what they experienced.
SEE, it is responses like this that PROVES that you Truly are INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting the CLAIMS that you make here.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am I did my best.
You OBVIOUSLY have NOT.

Your LIES and DECEIT are CRYSTAL CLEAR, well to 'me' anyway.
Off-topic again.
But STILL True.

And, this is, supposedly, ONLY "off-topic" BECAUSE YOU do NOT want to LOOK AT and DISCUSS this.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:15 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am

Without examples, then you just sound like you are 'trying to' DEFLECT.

Are you at all ABLE TO provide an example of where a tree is NOT necessary FIRST for fruit to be bared, depending on WHERE and WHEN 'you' are or 'i' am?

Are you at all ABLE TO explain WHY 'what is available' would depend on the FACT that a tree is NEEDED FIRST BEFORE fruit could come into existence?
It depends if you are on earth on the right time and place for example.
But what has causation got to do with 'me', personally?

Are you now 'trying to' suggest that causation is NOT possible without little old 'me'?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
Well I can FINISH 'that debate' ONCE and for ALL.
Cool.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am

I do NOT care how many 'things' you BELIEVE that you HAVE TO PROVE. I suggest just 'doing it'. I will AGAIN suggest to you that if you want to make a CLAIM, then it is BEST that you are able to back up and support that CLAIM with ACTUAL PROOF FIRST.
Ok.

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
When you say, "God", what do you mean, what are you referring to, how do you define that word, and what do you identify that word with, EXACTLY?
By God I mean the creator of everything from nothing at the beginning.
Here is ANOTHER ABSURD CONTRADICTION of YOURS, "bahman". You are SO BLIND that saying "God created everything from nothing" is in itself a 'self-contradiction'.

To you, there is, supposedly, some 'thing', which you call/label 'God', which would OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BE 'here/there' BEFORE everything else, but which you also CLAIM created everything from nothing. OBVIOUSLY there could NOT be 'nothing' if there is ALREADY this 'God' thingy, existing.

Also, adding the words, "in the beginning", is what ACTUALLY leads human beings like 'you' and the ones who are labeled/called 'religious' and 'scientific' to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there was EVEN 'a beginning' (to begin with).

The words, "in the beginning", have been MISINTERPRETED for so long now that some of 'you', human beings, in the days of when this was written, STILL ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there was EVEN 'a beginning' to Everything.

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am When you say, "There was a beginning", what are you referring to, what was there 'a beginning' of, EXACTLY?
The point that there was nothing before.
And, 'what', PRECISELY, are you basing this CLAIM, ASSUMPTION, and BELIEF on, EXACTLY?

Saying, "there was a point where there was nothing before", is as ILLOGICAL, UNSOUND, and as INVALID a statement as there could be.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that even suggests that this could even be A POSSIBILITY, let alone AN ACTUALITY. Whereas, EVERY 'thing' else points to the FACT that the ACTUAL OPPOSITE is thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am Also, I have PROVED what thee ACTUAL Truth IS ALREADY. This is done by YOUR INABILITY to answer MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you above here.
I cleared those definition up.
NO YOU HAVE NOT. What you are ASSUMING I was talking about here is WRONG and INCORRECT.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am Now the proofs:

1) There is no God: There are two states of affair in act of the creation, nothing then something respectively.
This is False, Wrong, Incorrect, and NOT YET PROVEN AT ALL.

But as can be ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED, and ALREADY PROVEN True, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing that is/was created came from at least two things prior. So, in the act of creation, there was, and IS, at least two things, then something 'new', respectively.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am One state of affair follows another one.
OBVIOUSLY one state of affair follows another one. This goes WITHOUT SAYING. But, saying that 'nothing' is one state and so that means that another state of "something" follows is NOTHING MORE than just YOUR BELIEF ALONE, which is based on absolutely NOTHING of ANY substance AT ALL.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am This act requires time.
If by 'time' here you just mean and are referring to 'duration', itself, then OBVIOUSLY one state following another state requires duration. This goes WITHOUT SAYING ALSO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am Time is a part of the creation itself.
If, and when, 'you' 'try to' define 'time' here, then what WILL BE SEEN is you just falling into your downward spiral and trap of CONTRADICTION again. Anyway, a part of 'Creation', Itself, OBVIOUSLY includes 'change', which necessarily involves duration. But, this ALSO just goes WITHOUT 'needing' to be SAID.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am Therefore, the act of creation is impossible since this (the act requires time and time is a part of creation) leads to regress.
Your ATTEMPTS at just adding the word 'regress' and using it as though that PROVES what you are saying is correct, is just MORE DISTORTED and DELUSIONAL THINKING.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am 2) There was a begining. There are two proofs in here:

A) Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually.
And you are BASING this IRREFUTABLE and ABSOLUTE Truth on 'what', EXACTLY?

What you have previously experienced, or, on what you have read in a book?

Have you FORGOTTEN that we are talking about thee Universe, Itself?

Also, you are just RE-REPEATING the SAME THINGS here WITHOUT EVER considering what I have been SAYING and WRITING here.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.
The absurdness and ridiculousness of this, so called, "logic" speaks for itself.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am B) There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.
The ILLOGICAL absurdness and ridiculousness CONTINUES.

I have ALSO ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY these two VIEWS are just PLAIN WRONG.

You did NOT respond to what I wrote and EXPLAINED last time.

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
This is ANOTHER CLAIM you like to make. YET you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM.

Are you even YET AWARE that I NEED to SEE PROOF FIRST, BEFORE I agree with and accept the CLAIMS made by 'you', human beings.

'you', "bahman", have YET to SHOW ANY PROOF for ANY of YOUR CLAIMS here.
I don't need to prove anything in here. Regress is related to infinity. Infinity cannot be reached by definition. Therefore, the regress is not acceptable.
you are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE. AND, I certainly have NO intention of wanting you to NOT believe what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, here.

You are ABSOLUTELY FREE to do and think ABSOLUTELY ANY way that you WANT TO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
If you can PROVE otherwise, then just say YES.

WHY are you making this SO UNNECESSARY HARD and COMPLEX?
Oh, come on. That is not complex.
SO, WHY is it YOU who just does NOT answer my clarifying question Honestly?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am Why don't you think and read my whole post before you start writing something and complain.
WHERE did you GET this ASSUMPTION from, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
Well WHY are YOU LEAVING these details out for?
I am not leaving any detail aside.
BUT YOU just said, "There are LOTS of DETAILS MISSING here".

If you KNOW this, then it MUST BE 'YOU' who is LEAVING those DETAILS ASIDE, obviously.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
BUT OBVIOUSLY ONLY 'you', human beings, make decisions. AND, just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that causation was happening and occurring BEFORE you human beings evolved and came into existence. SO, this makes YOUR CLAIM here beyond RIDICULOUS.
Minds have existed since the beginning. So there was always a decision before causation.
What were these "mind" thingies existing in and what were they making decisions through and from, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am

Okay, now we are STARTING to get SOMEWHERE, although it is BACK to WHERE we first began.

So, to 'you', which is sometimes A 'mind' and sometimes A human being WITH a 'mind', there has been these 'mind' thingies, which have, sometimes, been around FOREVER, and, sometimes, been around SINCE THE BEGINNING, correct?
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am When our discussions are LOOKED BACK OVER, the amount of times 'you', "bahman", CONTRADICT "yourself" is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS to LOOK AT, NOTICE, and OBSERVE.
What contradiction you are talking about.
LOL
LOL
LOL

The ones where YOU state; "you ARE a mind" YET "you HAVE a mind"
The ones where YOU state; "minds have been around FOREVER" YET "minds have only existed SINCE THE BEGINNING".
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Now, what sort of 'decisions' have these 'mind' thingies been making which MUST OF been BEFORE trees and fruit evolved and came into existence?
Anything depending on what they experienced.
SEE, it is responses like this that PROVES that you Truly are INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting the CLAIMS that you make here.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

You OBVIOUSLY have NOT.

Your LIES and DECEIT are CRYSTAL CLEAR, well to 'me' anyway.
Off-topic again.
But STILL True.

And, this is, supposedly, ONLY "off-topic" BECAUSE YOU do NOT want to LOOK AT and DISCUSS this.
[/quote]
I did my best. I cannot help you. You don't even understand the basics.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:38 am I did my best. I cannot help you. You don't even understand the basics.
And it is this type of condescending and arrogant attitude you have and show WHY you have NOT gotten ANYWHERE significant, with ANY one, in the threads that you begin and also CLAIM are absolutely and irrefutably true, right, AND correct.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:43 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:38 am I did my best. I cannot help you. You don't even understand the basics.
And it is this type of condescending and arrogant attitude you have and show WHY you have NOT gotten ANYWHERE significant, with ANY one, in the threads that you begin and also CLAIM are absolutely and irrefutably true, right, AND correct.
Arrogant is you who lough in middle of discussion "LOL" and use capital letters, call people liar, etc.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:47 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:43 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:38 am I did my best. I cannot help you. You don't even understand the basics.
And it is this type of condescending and arrogant attitude you have and show WHY you have NOT gotten ANYWHERE significant, with ANY one, in the threads that you begin and also CLAIM are absolutely and irrefutably true, right, AND correct.
Arrogant is you who lough in middle of discussion "LOL" and use capital letters, call people liar, etc.
Okay, if that is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, then that is what 'it' MUST BE, correct?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:57 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:47 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:43 am

And it is this type of condescending and arrogant attitude you have and show WHY you have NOT gotten ANYWHERE significant, with ANY one, in the threads that you begin and also CLAIM are absolutely and irrefutably true, right, AND correct.
Arrogant is you who lough in middle of discussion "LOL" and use capital letters, call people liar, etc.
Okay, if that is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, then that is what 'it' MUST BE, correct?
Yes.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:03 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:57 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:47 am
Arrogant is you who lough in middle of discussion "LOL" and use capital letters, call people liar, etc.
Okay, if that is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, then that is what 'it' MUST BE, correct?
Yes.
Thank you for answering Honestly.

Your answer here just SHOWS and PROVES that you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing other than what you ALREADY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:29 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:03 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:57 am

Okay, if that is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, then that is what 'it' MUST BE, correct?
Yes.
Thank you for answering Honestly.

Your answer here just SHOWS and PROVES that you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing other than what you ALREADY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true.
Do you know what the creation ex nihilo is? It means the creation out of nothing. What is the point of introducing God if things exist at the beginning?
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:36 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:29 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:03 am
Yes.
Thank you for answering Honestly.

Your answer here just SHOWS and PROVES that you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing other than what you ALREADY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true.
Do you know what the creation ex nihilo is? It means the creation out of nothing.
So, does this MEAN that "creation out of nothing" is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY true?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:36 am What is the point of introducing God if things exist at the beginning?
So, WHY did YOU introduce God?

Also, WHY do you PERSIST with the term "in the beginning"?

Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there was "a beginning"?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:44 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:36 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:29 am

Thank you for answering Honestly.

Your answer here just SHOWS and PROVES that you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing other than what you ALREADY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true.
Do you know what the creation ex nihilo is? It means the creation out of nothing.
So, does this MEAN that "creation out of nothing" is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY true?
I didn't say so. There are people who believe so. I have an argument against the act of creation.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:44 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:36 am What is the point of introducing God if things exist at the beginning?
So, WHY did YOU introduce God?

Also, WHY do you PERSIST with the term "in the beginning"?

Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there was "a beginning"?
There was a beginning. I think that is true.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:00 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:44 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:36 am
Do you know what the creation ex nihilo is? It means the creation out of nothing.
So, does this MEAN that "creation out of nothing" is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY true?
I didn't say so.
I KNOW you did NOT. I also did NOT say you DID. And, that is WHY I am asking you to CLARIFY.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm There are people who believe so.
Do 'you', "bahman" BELIEVE that "creation out of nothing" is the beginning of Everything?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm I have an argument against the act of creation.
What even IS "the act of creation", to 'you', which you say you "have an argument against"?

I suggest that if you are going to say that you have an argument against some 'thing', then you PROVIDE what that 'thing' IS FIRST, BEFORE you provide and argument against 'it' or say that you have an argument against 'it'.

I have absolutely NO idea AT ALL what some, so called, "the act of creation" is to you.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:44 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:36 am What is the point of introducing God if things exist at the beginning?
So, WHY did YOU introduce God?

Also, WHY do you PERSIST with the term "in the beginning"?

Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there was "a beginning"?
There was a beginning. I think that is true.
Okay, great. Now how could this "beginning", which you 'think' is true, even occur?

What you start EXPLAINING 'that', then we WILL LOOK INTO if this could even be LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, let alone EMPIRICALLY POSSIBLE, okay?

That is; if you are up to being CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:00 pm There was a beginning. I think that is true.
WHY would 'you' even think this is true?

I am curious as to WHAT would even lead a human being to a conclusion like this?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:00 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:44 am
So, does this MEAN that "creation out of nothing" is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY true?
I didn't say so.
I KNOW you did NOT. I also did NOT say you DID. And, that is WHY I am asking you to CLARIFY.
Ok.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm There are people who believe so.
Do 'you', "bahman" BELIEVE that "creation out of nothing" is the beginning of Everything?
No. I think that it is logically impossible.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm I have an argument against the act of creation.
What even IS "the act of creation", to 'you', which you say you "have an argument against"?
It is act of bringing something out of nothing.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm I suggest that if you are going to say that you have an argument against some 'thing', then you PROVIDE what that 'thing' IS FIRST, BEFORE you provide and argument against 'it' or say that you have an argument against 'it'.

I have absolutely NO idea AT ALL what some, so called, "the act of creation" is to you.
I already defined it in the previous comment.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:44 am So, WHY did YOU introduce God?

Also, WHY do you PERSIST with the term "in the beginning"?

Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there was "a beginning"?
There was a beginning. I think that is true.
Okay, great. Now how could this "beginning", which you 'think' is true, even occur?
It doesn't occur. Everything starts from there.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm What you start EXPLAINING 'that', then we WILL LOOK INTO if this could even be LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, let alone EMPIRICALLY POSSIBLE, okay?
It is not logically possible. I am not aware of any empirical proof.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm That is; if you are up to being CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED.
Yes.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:24 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:00 pm There was a beginning. I think that is true.
WHY would 'you' even think this is true?

I am curious as to WHAT would even lead a human being to a conclusion like this?
There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.
Post Reply